What does Serena have to do in order to be the best ever

[NLBwell]

Graf has 377 weeks at #1, Navratilova has 332. Serena has 123 weeks.
Another 200 weeks or so and she could be there depending upon what else she does.
That would be about 4 years more at #1. Given her age, it would be a very tough task. However, if she dedicated herself completely to it, she could get at least a couple of years of being #1. I wouldn't say it would be impossible for her to get 4 years.

[Razoredge]

Originally Posted by NLBwell

Graf has 377 weeks at #1, Navratilova has 332. Serena has 123 weeks.
Another 200 weeks or so and she could be there depending upon what else she does.
That would be about 4 years more at #1. Given her age, it would be a very tough task. However, if she dedicated herself completely to it, she could get at least a couple of years of being #1. I wouldn't say it would be impossible for her to get 4 years.

I think there'll be a new GOAT caliber player arriving before she retires in 4 years, probably around 2014.

[NadalAgassi]

The number 1 ranking has clearly become zero indication whatsoever to who the best player in the World at a given time is (in the last 15 years the best player is only ranked number 1 about 25% of the time) so it really is an almost meaningless stat to determine best ever. The mens ranking system and rankings in general have had much more credence to reality, and thus is a more meaningful stat for them.

[Razoredge]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

The number 1 ranking has clearly become zero indication whatsoever to who the best player in the World at a given time is (in the last 15 years the best player is only ranked number 1 about 25% of the time) so it really is an almost meaningless stat to determine best ever. The mens ranking system and rankings in general have had much more credence to reality, and thus is a more meaningful stat for them.

True story.

[Paul Murphy]

Win more majors in singles than Margaret Court.
That'll do it.

[Razoredge]

Originally Posted by Paul Murphy

Win more majors in singles than Margaret Court.
That'll do it.

That's never happening lol.

[Paul Murphy]

Originally Posted by Razoredge

That's never happening lol.

You're right. It won't.

[Ronaldo]

Originally Posted by Paul Murphy

You're right. It won't.

Just win, baby. Let the losers sort it out.

[NLBwell]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

The number 1 ranking has clearly become zero indication whatsoever to who the best player in the World at a given time is (in the last 15 years the best player is only ranked number 1 about 25% of the time) so it really is an almost meaningless stat to determine best ever. The mens ranking system and rankings in general have had much more credence to reality, and thus is a more meaningful stat for them.

The #1 ranking shows who was consistently the best throughout the year. We know Serena can reach extremely high peaks of play. To be the best ever, you also have to be consistent. If Wozniaki was over 300 weeks at #1, I would be examining her peak level and how many majors she has won. You have to do both.
People claim Wozniaki worked the schedule to be #1 (which really isn't true - almost everyone played the maximum amount of tournaments that are counted), but Serena worked the schedule to peak for the majors without going through the grind of all the smaller tournaments.
When Wozniaki was #1, who was the best player? Kvitova - only on certain days, Sharapova - not back to her best form, Clijsters - playing a limited schedule, Serena W. - sometimes injured sometimes not motivated, Stosur - not consistent, Azarenka - a head case back then. So why is the WTA ranking system messed up? It is very similar to the men's rankings. It's just that it didn't come out the way you wanted.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by NLBwell

The #1 ranking shows who was consistently the best throughout the year. We know Serena can reach extremely high peaks of play. To be the best ever, you also have to be consistent. If Wozniaki was over 300 weeks at #1, I would be examining her peak level and how many majors she has won. You have to do both.
People claim Wozniaki worked the schedule to be #1 (which really isn't true - almost everyone played the maximum amount of tournaments that are counted), but Serena worked the schedule to peak for the majors without going through the grind of all the smaller tournaments.
When Wozniaki was #1, who was the best player? Kvitova - only on certain days, Sharapova - not back to her best form, Clijsters - playing a limited schedule, Serena W. - sometimes injured sometimes not motivated, Stosur - not consistent, Azarenka - a head case back then. So why is the WTA ranking system messed up? It is very similar to the men's rankings. It's just that it didn't come out the way you wanted.

I agree. Consistently playing high level, commited to play throughout the year is totally difference than just playing high level for a short period. The challenge isn't just about playing the big events, but continue to compete for 1 year. On the men side, there's 4 different slam winner, but the reason why Nole ended the year #1 because he more consistent than Fed/Murray/Nadal. Serena could have been #1 if she's consistent. This is something Graf/Martina was able to do throughout their career and it helps boost their placement in his history as the goat.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by NLBwell

The #1 ranking shows who was consistently the best throughout the year.

No it isnt. I am not saying the person who is considered the best is always Serena, but it is almost never the year end #1. Lets look over the last 15 years:

1998- Davenport year end #1, Hingis best player and best record.
1999- Hingis year end #1, Davenport best player and best record.
2000- Hingis year end #1, Davenport year end #2, Venus year end #3. Venus though Worlds best player, Davenport second best, Hingis third best.
2001- Davenport year end #1, Capriati year end #2, Hingis year end #3 but #1 ranked most of the year, Davenport year end #4. Venus though Worlds best player by far, Capriati second best by far, Serena probably third best, Davenport fourth best, Hingis about 9th best.
2002- Serena year end #1, Serena best player
2003- Henin year end #1, Clijsters year end #2, Serena year end #3. Serena clearly best player but the rankings were skewed by injury so ok.
2004- Davenport year end #1, Henin year end #7. Henin years best player, Sharapova (who ended ranked #5 on computer) 2nd best player, Davenport about 7th best player.
2005- Davenport year end #1, Clijsters years best player, Davenport again probably not even top 5.
2006- Henin year end #1, Sharapova year end #2, Mauresmo year end #3. Mauresmo years best player and Henin second best.
2007- Henin year end #1, Henin best player
2008- Jankovic year end #1, Serena best player of year
2009- Serena year end #1, Safina very close #2 and #1 ranked most of the year. Serena by FAR years best player, Venus or Kuznetsova 2nd and 3rd best, Kuznetsova 4th best, Safina something like 8th best.
2010- Wozniacki year end #1, Clijsters best player of year (note if I was only looking at major wins and nothing else I would have said Serena).
2011- Woziacki year end #1, Kvitova year end #2. Kvitova by FAR best player in the World for year 2011, Wozniacki about 5th or 6th best.

So in 2 years the Worlds best player was year end #1, 3 if you add 2003 which was correct based on results atleast. Sometimes someone who is only about the 7th best player in the World is year end #1. WTA rankings = meaningless to determine greatness. Next.


As for your question to who was the best player while Wozniacki was ranked #1 well sure as hell was never her, that is for sure. Most of 2010 it was Serena, late 2010 and early 2011 it was Clijsters, and by the end of 2011 it was clearly Kvitova even with her bad 2 month patch in the summer (most of Wozniacki's year was a bad patch, well for any top players standards other than her own meanial ones that is). Her 2011 year end #1 is the biggest joke in history, and no this doesnt even involve Serena since I concede Serena has no case whatsoever for the 2011 #1 ranking. Kvitova, who I am not even a fan of either btw, won more tournaments, won bigger tournaments in stronger fields, won a slam, won the WTA Championships, had better slam results, won tournaments on all surfaces, even had a better W-L % which proves the stupid consistency argument for Wozniacki is even BS. Wozniacki was not at all consistent in 2011, after April or so she was crap the rest of the year, losing early rounds to much lower ranked players at most events she entered. There is no better evidence of the ridiculousness of giving merit to WTA rankings than the year 2011.

Now as for 2012 atleast one could make a case Azarenka deserves the #1 ranking based on consistent performance (unlike Fraudniacki in 2011), but as anyone with a brain knows even if she does perhaps deserve to be ranked #1, nobody considers her the Worlds best player, nobody considers her to have had the best or greatest year, nobody would rather her 2012 results than Serena's, and thus even if deserving of the #1 ranking she still proves the meanginless to the #1 ranking stat in womens tennis to whom should be considered better or greater in any scheme or context.

[Razoredge]

How was Serena clearly the best player of 2003? Henin had the same number of slams and more overall titles, thus she takes the edge over Serena. Maybe Serena would've been able to get the no. 1 if not for injury but that's just a hypothetical, Henin clearly had the better year.

Also Henin led their head-to-head that year 2-1.

Definitely the best player of 2003, you're just way too biased man.

[monfed]

As much as I want Serena to be female GOAT she isn't. She's all power and no finesse unfortunately unlike Graf,Navratilova etc.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Razoredge

How was Serena clearly the best player of 2003? Henin had the same number of slams and more overall titles, thus she takes the edge over Serena. Maybe Serena would've been able to get the no. 1 if not for injury but that's just a hypothetical, Henin clearly had the better year.

Also Henin led their head-to-head that year 2-1.

Definitely the best player of 2003, you're just way too biased man.

2003 is a unique case. If you could read properly you would note I acknowledged Henin deserved the #1 ranking and probably had the best year in 2003 (well even that is argaubly with Serena winning 2 majors, Miami, and some other tournaments, while Henin won 2 majors and neither the WTA Championships or Miami) due to Serena being injured, so it wasnt the fault of the ranking system, and it wasnt the wrong person at #1, unlike all those other cases. However Serena until her injury which ended her career in July had been by far the dominant player of 2003, Henin had bested her on clay, but Serena was by far the queen everywhere else, and so nobody considered anyone but Serena the "best player" per say at the end of the year. Even at the U.S Open the commentators said repeatedly the 2 best players in the World Serena and Venus werent there, that was the consensus of everyone at the time.

[Razoredge]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

2003 is a unique case. If you could read properly you would note I acknowledged Henin deserved the #1 ranking and probably had the best year in 2003 (well even that is argaubly with Serena winning 2 majors, Miami, and some other tournaments, while Henin won 2 majors and neither the WTA Championships or Miami) due to Serena being injured, so it wasnt the fault of the ranking system, and it wasnt the wrong person at #1, unlike all those other cases. However Serena until her injury which ended her career in July had been by far the dominant player of 2003, Henin had bested her on clay, but Serena was by far the queen everywhere else, and so nobody considered anyone but Serena the "best player" per say at the end of the year. Even at the U.S Open the commentators said repeatedly the 2 best players in the World Serena and Venus werent there, that was the consensus of everyone at the time.

That was before Henin won the US Open that year and became the most dominant player from then on until 2008.

Hindsight changes everything.

[AndrewD]

Originally Posted by pc1

Actually if she does it twice and is almost unbeatable like Navratilova was for a few years that would help a lot.

To be honest, if she were the best ever she'd have done it while Henin was still playing and at her peak.

[Razoredge]

..............
......

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by AndrewD

To be honest, if she were the best ever she'd have done it while Henin was still playing and at her peak.

Henin and Serena never peaked at the same times so that would be impossible. However peak Serena would have no problems whatsoever with Henin on anything but a clay court.

[Razoredge]

Just ignore my post lol.

Anyways we'll see how Serena performs these upcoming years, every slam she doesn't win is a loss given the quality of competition (unless they raise their games (lol) or some newcomer comes along).

[NLBwell]

Originally Posted by Razoredge

Just ignore my post lol.

Anyways we'll see how Serena performs these upcoming years, every slam she doesn't win is a loss given the quality of competition (unless they raise their games (lol) or some newcomer comes along).

You may be underrating the competition - we'll see how they play in 2013. Azarenka has improved a lot the last couple of years and may continue improving. Sharapova definitely improved last year and could possibly get to better form than ever in 2013. Kvitova has the capability to beat anyone, including Serena, when she is at her best and it isn't uncommmon for young players to have an off year right after an excellent year. There are new up-and-coming players each year. All of these players may significantly improve in 2013, making it a great year in women's tennis - of course, maybe they all fall apart. Right now, I'm thinking they all will improve.